Program Assessment Rating Tool: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 06:34, 4 August 2021

Latest revision as of 00:00, 7 June 2025

(7 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{UnderlinkedUse American English|date=JulyJune 20182025}}

The '''Program Assessment Rating Tool''', or '''PART''', was a program run through the United States [[Office of Management and Budget]] to rate the effectiveness of all federal programs, PART was instituted by President [[George W. Bush]] in 2002. to rateIt allwas federaldiscontinued programs on their effectiveness. Byby the conclusion[[Presidency of theBarack BushObama|Obama administration, PART was applied to just over 1,000 federal programs,]].

PART was spearheaded by OMB Director [[Mitch Daniels]]. OMB staff designed PART and set the final evaluation assigned to a program.

The '''Program Assessment Rating Tool''', or '''PART''', was a program run through the United States [[Office of Management and Budget]] instituted by President [[George W. Bush]] in 2002 to rate all federal programs on their effectiveness. By the conclusion of the Bush administration, PART was applied to just over 1,000 federal programs,

representing 98% of the federal budget. The Obama administration discontinued the use of PART assessments. Actual PART assessments can still be viewed among George W. Bush online presidential archives: https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/omb/expectmore/part.html

By the end of the Bush administration, PART had been applied to over 1,000 federal programs, representing 98% of the [[Federal budget of the United States|federal budget]].

==History==

The PART was introduced in the 2004 Fiscal Year Federal budget,. and explained by theThe [[Presidency of George W. Bush|Bush Administrationadministration]] as a programclaimed that PART built upon previous efforts of American Presidentspresidents to make sure federal programs were accountable and achieved results.<ref>{{cite web |author =| title=FY 2004 Budget Chapter Introducing the PART: Rating the Performance of Federal Programs | publisher=whitehouse.gov[[White House]] | date= February 7, 2005 | url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/part/| access-date=2008-09-17 |url-status =dead|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080616222524/http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/part/ <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archive-date = 2008-06-16}}</ref> The toolPART grew out of an early Bush administration blueprint for administration called the President's Management Agenda, which set a goal of integrating performance data with the federal budgeting process.

==Implementation==

PART was spearheaded by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),a [[Mitch DanielsSurveying|survey]], and OMB staff had primary responsibility for designing the tool, and setting the final evaluation assigned to a program. PART itself was a survey instrument, developed by OMB staff with outside advice. The instrument asked 25-30 questions divided into four categories:

* program purpose and design,
* strategic planning,
* program management, and
* program results.

Based on the responses to those questions, programs were given a numerical score that aligned with a categorical scale of performance ranging from effective, moderately effective, adequate or ineffective.

In cases where evaluators felt they could not make a judgment, programs were assigned a "results not demonstrated" judgment, which was generally believed to be a negative assessment on a par with an ineffective grade. To complete the tool, OMB budget examiners conducted extensive consultation with agency staff, though the final judgment rested with the OMB.<ref>Moynihan, Donald P. 2013. "Advancing the Empirical Study of Performance Management: What we learned from the Program Assessment Rating Tool." American Review of Public Administration 43(5):497-515. url=http://www.lafollette.wisc.edu/images/publications/workingpapers/moynihan2013-003.pdf</ref>

==Utilization==

President Bush used the rating tool to partially justify cuts or elimination of 150 programs in his 2006 FY budget.<ref>{{cite web| author=Amelia Gruber| title=Program assessments factor into Bush plan to trim deficit| publisher=govexec.com| date=February 7, 2005| url=http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0205/020705a1.htm| access-date=2006-12-14| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061106161304/http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0205/020705a1.htm| archive-date=November 6, 2006| url-status=dead}}</ref> One study found that PART scores had a modest [[correlation]] with budget changes proposed by the PresidentBush.<ref>Gilmour, J.B., & Lewis, D.E. (2006). Assessing performance budgeting at OMB: The influence of politics, performance, and program size. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16:169-86.</ref>

{| class="wikitable"

|- bgcolor="#CCCCCC"

! Result !! 2002 !! 2003 !! 2004 !! 2005 !! 2006 !! 2007 !! 2008

|-

Line 31 ⟶ 41:

==Reception==

Reaction from the [[United States Congress]] has beenwas mixed.<ref>{{cite web| author=Amelia Gruber| title=OMB seeks agency outreach on linking performance to budgets| publisher=govexec.com| date=March 4, 2004| url=http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0304/030404a1.htm| access-date=2006-12-14| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060510122959/http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0304/030404a1.htm| archive-date=May 10, 2006| url-status=dead}}</ref> However, Congress paid little attention to the PART scores.<ref>Moynihan, D.P. (2008). The Dynamics of Performance Management: Constructing Information and Reform. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.</ref><ref>Redburn, F.S. & Newcomer, K. (2008). Achieving Real Improvement in Program performance and Policy Outcomes: The Next Frontier. Washington D.C.: National Academy of Public Administration.</ref><ref>Frisco, V. & Stalebrink, O.J. (2008). Congressional Use of the Program Assessment Rating Tool. Public Budgeting and Finance 28, 1-19.</ref> Scholars at the [[The Heritage Foundation|Heritage Foundation]] support the program and its potential to reduce the size of government.<ref>{{cite web |author =Keith Miller and Alison Acosta Fraser| title="PART" of the Solution: The Performance Assessment Ratings Tool| publisher=Heritage Foundation | date= January 9, 2004 | url=http://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/part-the-solution-the-performance-assessment-ratings-tool| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171204061427/http://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/part-the-solution-the-performance-assessment-ratings-tool| url-status=unfit| archive-date=December 4, 2017| access-date=2006-12-19}}</ref> The program won the 2005 Government Innovators Network Award, noting that the program's reception has led to similar program evaluation systems in [[Scotland]], Thailand, and [[South Korea]].<ref>{{cite web |author =| title=Program Assessment Rating Tool| publisher=Government Innovators Network | date=January 1, 2006 | url=http://www.innovations.harvard.edu/awards.html?id=7496| access-date=2006-12-15}}</ref>

Efforts to institutionalize the PART into a permanent process failed in Congress, and PART was viewed with suspicion by [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] lawmakers in particular.

==References==

{{reflist}}

== External links ==

representing 98% of the federal budget. The Obama administration discontinued the use of PART assessments. Actual PART assessments can still be viewedassessment amongat George W. Bush online presidential archives: https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/omb/expectmore/part.html

==External links==